1. The Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Gahap4453 Decided June 26, 2015 against the Defendants’ Plaintiff on January 14, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for claiming the return of unjust enrichment, and the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Gahap4453 (principal suit) rendered on June 26, 2015, the first instance court sentenced the Defendants to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 6, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. After that, according to the above judgment of the first instance court where the Defendants could be provisionally executed, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 128,239,268 with Defendant B on September 26, 2015, and deposited KRW 128,239,268, and D, the third obligor of the seizure and collection order, deposited KRW 128,852,053 with Defendant C on November 12, 2015.

C. However, on January 14, 2016, Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2037892 (Main Office), the appellate court of the instant case, rendered a judgment revoking the first instance judgment in excess of the above judgment, along with the judgment that the Plaintiff would pay the Defendants 78,056,666 won each year from June 6, 2014 to January 4, 2016, and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Facts of recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since it is apparent that the claims of the defendants against the plaintiff by the above final judgment against the plaintiff were extinguished due to repayment, the plaintiff's claim seeking the exclusion of enforcement force is accepted.